The ABA speaks, refutes Nader

On May 14, presidential perennial Ralph Nader told a University of Washington audience that the president of the American Bar Association said President Bush has committed an impeachable offense.

Seattle lawyer (and soon to be San Francisco Giants president) Bill Neukom is the ABA’s current president. While disagreeing with the Bush administration on policy, Neukom is just not a guy who tosses around blowtorch rhetoric about impeaching presidents.

Anybody who tries to refute the Nader cult gets to be on the receiving end of verbal fire.

In a letter to the editor, a Naderite made vague reference to past statements by ABA brass. Nader fired off a condescending letter to the P-I, alluding to remarks by the 2005-2006 president of the ABA.

The smoke screen doesn’t make it. Nader cannot substantiate his UW remark, because it is untrue.

Charles W. Hall, manager of presidential communications for the ABA, sent along the following letter:

“At present, Nader’s comments have been made at such a low level that it doesn’t call for any further written comment, but I wanted to let you know that your reporting was correct.
“The ABA has, at different times and with different administrations, made statements criticizing different practices. In some cases, we’ve said we don’t think specific practices conformed to constitutional principles, such as the Separation of Powers.”

And then, getting to the heart of the manner – and the heart of why Nader is no longer an effective advocate – Hall added:

“There is a yawning difference between saying that and accusing any president of impeachable offenses, which involve ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’
“No ABA president has made such an accusation during the Bush administration. With the possible exception of Watergate, when one ABA president said that ‘No man is abolve the law,’ I’m not aware that the ABA has even come close to accusing a president of impeachable offenses.”

A challenge to Ralph Nader:

Tell the truth!!!

Come clean, and acknowledge that you made a statement about the American Bar Association and its president that was simply not true.

If Hillary Clinton could fess up after claiming she landed under fire in Bosnia, so can you. If Barack Obama can admit on the campaign trail that he isn’t up to date on an important regional issue (i.e. Hanford), Ralph, you can admit to misrepresenting views of one of Seattle’s most esteemed lawyers.

Nowadays, whatever remarks out of Ralph Nader are made at a “low level.”

It’s sad, really, in that the man made real contributions to protecting America’s consumers . . . back in the days when his fire was on target, and his findings were irrefutable.

Nowadays, sadly, the man worships at the altar of his own unappreciated brilliance. What’s really sad is that this self-indulgence helped decide the 2000 presidential election, and launch a war.